M/S. Kirthi Power Solutions Private Limited. vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 23.11.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) under Section 73 of the CGST and SGST Acts, 2017, was not sustainable. The Court reasoned that when there is a patent illegality in the order and the petitioner has already discharged its tax liability, including the payment of interest, it is not expected for the assessee to move an application for rectification. The authorities, upon verification, should have taken steps to recall the order if no default was found. In exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and noting that the petitioner had discharged its liabilities, the Court found the order unsustainable and therefore set it aside. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Facts
The Petitioner, M/s. Kirthi Power Solutions Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 23.11.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) under Section 73 of the CGST and SGST Acts, 2017, for the tax periods July 2017 to March 2018. The Petitioner contended that they had submitted their returns on 22.12.2021 and uploaded them on 24.12.2021, paying the applicable tax and interest for delayed payment. This was communicated to the authorities on 24.12.2021. A subsequent notice was issued, which was again replied to on 14.11.2023, reiterating the payment. Despite these communications, the impugned order was passed, which the Petitioner alleged was done mechanically and without proper verification. The Respondent's counsel acknowledged a potential error by the authorities.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) under Section 73 of the CGST and SGST Acts, 2017, is arbitrary, capricious, violative of principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction, and contrary to law and facts, given that the petitioner claims to have discharged its tax and interest liabilities for the period July 2017 to March 2018? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that they had duly paid the tax and interest liabilities and had communicated this to the respondent-authorities on multiple occasions. They contended that the impugned order was passed mechanically without proper verification of records, thereby violating principles of natural justice and being without jurisdiction. They relied on their timely submissions and payments. Revenue's Contention: The counsel for the Department submitted that it appeared to be an error on the part of the respondent-authorities in passing the order and indicated that appropriate orders would be passed upon the petitioner filing an application for rectification.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
[ 33e7 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA wRlT PET|TION NO.33944 0F 2023 Between: M/s. Kirthi Power Solutions Private Limited, 2-2-1130, Flat No. 201,2, Jamalapuram Enclave, Nallakunta, Hyderabad - 500044, Telangana, Rep. by its Director, Mr. Seetharam Rao Gade. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Vidyanagar Circle, Secunderabad Division, 9th Floor, Mayur Kushal Complex, Abids, Hyderabad, Telangana. The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Principal Secretary to the Govemment, Revenue (ST) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, Telangana.
The Union of lndia, rep. by its Secretary (Finance), Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 1 10001 . ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly in the nature of MANDAMUS declaring that the impugned Order un
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.